SEER Inquiry System - Search

There is no statement of mucinous or non-mucinous in this case, only adenocarcinoma in situ and an obsolete term bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) which used to be code 8250. However 8250 is now lepidic adenocarcinoma, and does not match this diagnosis.

Although the Histology Rules do include a general note indicating that the preferred term for BAC is now mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253, it is not listed as a synonym in Table 3. As a result it is unclear how to apply this statement in accordance with the H rules.

The ICD-O Histology Updates table also includes Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous which seems to suggest that in order to apply histology code 8252 (non-mucinous) or 8253 (mucinous) one must also have a statement of mucinous or non-mucinous.

It appears that the first Other Sites applicable rule is H16 (and Table 2) instructing the use of histology code 8323 (mixed cell adenocarcinoma). However, this really is not an adenocarcinoma tumor but is a mixed squamous and transitional cell carcinoma. The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update Table provides a new term for a but does not indicate whether that new term would also include a papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix.

Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2.

Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).

Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.

The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).

Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) lists Ewing sarcoma as a synonym for Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor 9364. Presumably, this is to be used for the reportable malignant peripheral nerve tumors when diagnosed as pPNET or Ewing sarcoma. However, this patient has a type of central (or CNS) primitive neuroectodermal tumor (histology 9473). Table 3 does not list central primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET or CPNET) as a valid histology for CNS tumors.

While Table 3 does not list all the possible histologies for the CNS, it currently is not clear how one would arrive at the histology code for a CNS Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration, as this is recognized as a new entity for primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the CNS (i.e., PNET, histology 9473) per multiple journal articles. Ewing sarcoma family tumors include both peripheral PNET and central PNET tumors, but to code this histology as a peripheral PNET (9364) in this case seems incorrect when the primary tumor is stated to be of central nervous system origin, not peripheral nervous system origin.

Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct?

Example: Lung resection final diagnosis is Lung adenocarcinoma, see Summary Cancer Data, and the Summary Cancer Data (CAP Synoptic Report) states Histologic type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant. Other Subtypes Present: 20% acinar and <5% micropapillary components.

Instruction 1B and Note 1 for Coding Multiple Histologies (Lung Histology Rules) indicates type, subtype, component, and predominantly are all terms that may be used to code the most specific histology. In this case, the multiple specific histologies were documented using all of those terms.

Note 2 for instruction 1B states predominantly describes the greatest amount of tumor and when it is used for the listed subtypes of adenocarcinoma, that subtype should be coded. However, Note 2 does not indicate that the other subtypes are ignored when one is identified to be predominant and the others are identified as subtype or component only.

How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?

The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.